>When you say 'democratically chosen', it begs the question of how those choices are made. Do we vote on every proposal?

Ideally, yes. But, ideally again, it is not majority alone that rules. The rule must make sense. Example: Suppose protestants are the majority and Catholics are the minority. As long as that the Catholics only use peaceful words, there is totally no ground to forbid them to speak out. Suppose some protestants start preaching militantly, although they are part of a majority, it should be possible to apply a rule that forbids militant preaching. So, a rule should forbid a certain behavior, rather than forbid a group.

>Do we accept that whatever our democratically chosen leaders want to do is acceptable?

No. The leader can only act in a certain way if a rule permits him to do so.

>A free society must accept that freedom is not a simple thing.

Right. No simple thing because there are rules that rightfully limit that freedom.

>It is up to each and every person in that free society to make choices.

It is up to each and every person to understand and appreciate the limiting rules.

>Each of us has to have the right to express our opinions, or we simply no longer have a free society.

Sure. Within the limits of the rules. It will also prevent that the mightiest (money) and loudest (power) are the only ones who can ventilate their opinion.

>If certain members of society have no right to express their feelings, then how can we ensure that it >is not our opinions (those of us on the 'sane' side of any issue) that will be outlawed.

If you and I understand the rules, and if the rules are okay, then you and I have nothing to fear.

>No. If you can curtail somebody elses right to speak, then you can curtail mine, and I find that to >be completely unacceptable.

This is simply not true. Unless, of course, your opinions are not okay. And in that case I think it is acceptible to curtail your right to speak.